proaches that they are taking. And I guess I feel this way: That we have been dealing with this problem over such a long period of time that we ought to, when we move forward with a piece of legislation, move forward with one that we feel is really going to work. This means having the administrative tools to carry the program out. Otherwise, I think I am almost of the opinion that we should not do anything. We have had a commission study for 2 years, and for the first time some consensus that something needs to be done. So we ought to do something major.

When I say that I feel that the administration is a little too timid and half-hearted, I think it relates to the subject we have just been talking about, that of documentation. Now, there is general agreement between the administration and some of us on this committee that we ought to make it unlawful to knowingly hire illegal aliens.

I have already spoken to the point that I hope that the business trade associations in America would get behind this. It could be their contribution to help solving one of our major problems in this country. But in order for us to do that, then obviously we have to give to business and employers generally the tools with which to know whether or not the law is being violated and whether or not they are hiring undocumented people.

That gets to the point, then, of a counterfeit-proof document, work permit or social security card. I just do not like what the administration has put forward as what they claim will accomplish the goal. I do not think it will. I think it is timid in the sense that it does avoid some of the controversy, but I do not think it will get the job done and I think it is half-hearted. It makes the whole program half-hearted in the sense that this seems not to accomplish the goal of taking away the economic incentive for people to come illegally to this country.

And it is my understanding from previous testimony that this proposal was made because of the cost of a more comprehensive program. So I would like to ask you, is that the basis for the administration's position that they are against the so-called counterfeit-proof documents because of costs, or is it some philosophical objection?

MS. MEISSNER. It is several factors, but a principal factor most certainly is cost. To reissue a social security card that would be a secure document would cost about $2 billion, and that estimate was independently verified by GAO.

There is, in addition, the question of time. It would be impossible to implement the program based on a new, more secure identifier in less than 3 to 5 years. The administration believes that we need to move more quickly on this issue. A more secure system might come down the road at some point but to wait for that is unacceptable at this time.

Senator GRASSLEY. And cost is holding that back? Is that the main thing?

Ms. MEISSNER. Even if you poured all the resources available into it, you could not develop and implement a system like that in less than 3 to 5 years.

Senator GRASSLEY. But we have to get started. We have to get started some day on it. I guess I am referring to what Senator Ken

nedy referred to in the second to the last paragraph, about the possibility of moving in that direction.

It would seem to me that even if we moved in that direction the extent to which we started issuing such counterfeit-proof ID, would be gradually phased in. I would think that illegal aliens to some extent are some of those people who need the documents near term, as opposed to having them in their possession long term.

My question, I guess, should wait for next Friday, is that right? Who are we having before us next Friday?

Senator SIMPSON. We have a significant panel and it will be on worker identification and verification systems.

Senator GRASSLEY. OK. I have expressed my point of view to these people.

I do want to make one last comment in regard to what Senator Kennedy raised about possible discrimination. It seems to me that the very essence of proper ID is to eliminate discrimination, because if a person who may appear to be, quote, unquote, “questionable" to some employer, if the proper ID is available, then there will be no discrimination.

Senator SIMPSON. That is, of course, one of the things we tried to lay to rest at the beginnings of our efforts. Any identification system is not going to be just demanded from those who appear foreign. The identification systems that we will eventually arrive at through the legislation will be required of everyone.

So the argument that there will be discrimination, I think, needs to be assessed in the searching light of that fact. We are not talking about any other kind of system.

Senator GRASSLEY. Mr. Chairman, my comment probably is as much to the members of the committee as to the administration, but I just want to amplify my personal feeling that this is the key to what we are going to do. There has got to be some check on the economic incentive for coming to this country. That has got to be placed on the back of the employer, but in the process they have to be given the proper tools.

And I do not think the administration's proposal does give the proper tools, and since it is the heart of it I would hope that you would give major consideration to that and including that in it or, in my judgment, really nothing in it at all, because we cannot continue the half-hearted approach to this problem that we have for the last several years.

Senator SIMPSON. I appreciate that very much.

Let me recognize Senator DeConcini, Dennis DeConcini, of Arizona, who is a member of the subcommittee, who was also a member of the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy, one of the four Senate Members, three of whom are on the subcommittee. It is always good to have you and your participation. Senator DECONCINI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a few questions that I will submit to the administration. The answers, in order to be complete, may be submitted in writing. They are of interest to some of the organizations I have worked with on this issue.

I would like to ask the representatives of the administration if they can help this Senator to understand: Did the administration,

in coming forward with their proposal, rely on the findings of the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugees?

I do not say that we found all the answers by any means. But I have yet to see such an effort put together, quite frankly, where proxy members were not permitted to vote and really participate other than as observers. And I see some distinctions in the program, and I am open to any improvement. And I just wonder how much that played a part in the administration's program?

Ms. MEISSNER. The select commission report was a central element in the deliberations of the administration. In fact, the report was the basic primer document that everyone on the task force read and reviewed before the first set of meetings. I think if you traced through the proposals, you would see that there are differences but there are some striking similarities in the outcome as well.

Senator DECONCINI. Did the Attorney General participate in this task force and in the deliberations?

Ms. MEISSNER. Absolutely. In fact, the deliberations of the task force were somewhat similar to the deliberations of the select commission. I can say that, having participated in both.

Senator DECONCINI. I am pleased to hear that. I cannot help but recall Attorney General Civiletti's great commitment to this problem, and also your involvement, Ms. Meissner, in the Commission's efforts. I am pleased to know that Attorney General Smith has been personally involved in working with his staff to find a solution to this difficult problem.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DENNIS DeCONCINI, U.S.

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

Senator DECONCINI. Mr. Chairman, the statement I would like to make for the record is very brief and it is one of frustration. First of all, compliments to you, Mr. Chairman, for not ducking this issue. There are no easy answers to these problems as I am sure the Chairman understands. Your efforts in addressing the issue and attempting to formulate legislation on it is highly commendable. Also, the amount of time that you and the staff have put in on this is outstanding in my opinion. That indicates to me your leadership and your willingness to move ahead.

Notwithstanding that, I am frustrated because I am fearful that if this body and the House do not pass something reasonable and do it soon, there will be a tremendous public outcry. I witness a great resistance to present immigration policy and what I consider an unhealthy climate in the population which may well lead toward perhaps some very drastic steps that I think would be damaging to our country as a Nation, and the community of nations. So I am pleased that the administration is willing to take a firm position on this issue for it gives us a starting point from which we can work. I am hopeful that this Congress can report something to the American people, alhought I realize we may not fully satisfy me or some members of this committee, or possibly anyone who has an interest in the problem. I do think it is absolutely paramount, Mr. Chairman, that we take a positive action and not allow

this problem to remain unaddressed through another election, through another commission, and through another study.

I will submit my written questions to members of the administration. I thank the chairman.

Senator SIMPSON. Thank you, Senator DeConcini. And I assure you that that is my pledge, that it will be addressed.

Thank you so much. I appreciate your being present. Ms. Meissner?

Ms. MEISSNER. Senator, may I make one final point? The argument about present laws and enforcement of present laws is a very attractive one. I think you should know that our own statistics within the Immigration Service are that over 60 percent of the people that we apprehend are in jobs that pay more than the minimum wage.

Senator SIMPSON. I think that is something that is not yet sufficiently recognized by the American public, but is becoming more apparent to them. We are not talking about jobs that Americans do not take.

Thank you very much. We will now go to Mr. Fuchs. We are about 25 minutes behind schedule. But if there is one thing that Mr. Fuchs learned, it was patience, as the executive director of the select commission.

So thank you again, Ms. Meissner, Mr. Lovell, Ambassador Asencio, and Mr. Hitler.

We will go now to Prof. Lawrence Fuchs of Brandeis University, formerly the executive director of the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy.

STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE H. FUCHS, JAFFE PROFESSOR OF AMERICAN CIVILIZATION AND POLITICS, BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY, FORMERLY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE SELECT COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE POLICY

Mr. FUCHS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I know you want to move ahead. I have a very brief

Senator SIMPSON. Excuse me. At this time I ask those leaving the room to be as quiet as possible. That would be appreciated.

Mr. FUCHS. I have a brief, if not succinct, written statement to submit, and have tried to leave as much time as possible for an exchange of views since so many of you are familiar with the ground that we have gone over, and we can develop information, I think, more satisfactorily that way.

Any discussion of this topic-and by the way, Mr. Wood, I do have copies of this very brief statement available for the committee, and 50 copies as requested.

Any discussion must begin with a clear statement as to why one believes an employer sanction law is necessary. I begin with a disclaimer. I am not one of those who believes that the continued flow, at least in the near term, of illegal aliens is likely to result in large-scale displacement of American workers. Now what do I mean by large scale? I mean on the order of 100,000 or more a year.

However, the displacement of even a smaller number of workers is a serious matter and should not be trivialized. Even if we assume

that only—and this would be a low figure in most persons' judgments, although not mine-even if we assume that only 50,000 person-years were displaced, these would be American citizens or others legally eligible to work in a given year, many of whom are desperately seeking work, have families to support, and are entitled to protection from the U.S. Government.

Moreover, the cost of that, even for 50,000 person-years, is not inconsiderable. We figure a cost of $7,000 a year, and that adds up to $350 million a year, which is more than the operating cost of any of the employer sanctions-employee eligibility systems considered by the select commission.

So while I am not one of those who says we would solve our unemployment problem, because I do not believe we would, I do believe that that is a factor to be considered. I tend, however, to agree with economists who testified before the select commission that the migration of workers to the United States, even those who now come outside of the law-and here I think Senator Schmitt is probably correct-contribute to the economic growth of this country.

But I also believe that employers in the United States will continue to have an enormous appetite for labor in the years to come, and that the chances the number of illegal aliens expanding in this country really are quite good. So I am for an employer sanctions law and a secure means of identifying persons eligible to work.

I am for such a law even if one discounts economic factors. I am for such a law when it is combined with other enforcement strategies, and I will indicate in a few moments what I believe by that, because I believe that a large class of persons living outside the protection of the law in this country is harmful in many ways.

It breeds other kinds of illegality, and we had ample documentation to that effect. It undermines confidence in law generally and in immigration law specifically. It promotes the idea that only foreigners are fit for certain kinds of labor. It tends to depress working standards in sectors of the economy where standards need to be strengthened. It enlarges the number of persons in this country, adults and children, who cannot speak English or participate in mainstream American institutions. It promotes interethnic conflict. Finally, it undercuts the foundation of our society, the belief that every individual who resides within our boundaries should as far as is humanly possible, under our 14th, 1st, 4th, and 5th amendments, receive equality of protection under the law and due process of law, have equality of freedom and opportunity.

These negative results would be sufficient for me to overcome the persuasive testimony of humanitarians who emphasize the human right to migrate and the economists who stress the importance of adding human capital to our labor force in order to promote aggregate economic growth. Probably the best way to import human capital is to make it possible for the immediate relatives of U.S. citizens and resident aliens to immigrate to this country more easily than they now are able to do and to increase the pool of legal immigrants, but not through a temporary worker program, who are admitted to this country independent of family relationships.